Sayaji Iron & Engg. Co. v. CIT

253 ITR 749High Court2002#525 most cited

What is Sayaji Iron & Engg. Co. v. CIT authority for?

For a limited company, expenses cannot be disallowed merely on the grounds of presumed personal use of assets by directors or by treating the expenditure as a non-business purpose. Percentage disallowances of expenses in such cases are not sustainable.

181

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Sayaji Iron & Engg. Co. v. CIT · 253 ITR 749 · disallowance of expenses · personal use directors · non-business purpose · limited company expenses · business expediency · Section 40A

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40(a)(ia)Section 119Section 127Section 133ASection 142(2A)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 198section 2(31)business expediencysection 40a(2)(b)material facts necessary for assessmentsection 40a(2)mere change of opinionsection 40ablock of assetsenduring benefitsection 40a(3)section 30

Judgments citing Sayaji Iron & Engg. Co. v. CIT

Popular Estate Management Ltd., (Previously Known As Pioneer Technopark Ltd), Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2703/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2703/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2012-13) Popular Estate Management The Dcit बनाम/ Ltd. Circle-3(1)(1) Vs. (Previously Known As Pioneer Ahmedabad Technopark Ltd.) 81, New York Tower – A Opp. Muktidham Derasar Sg Highway Thaltej Cross Road Ahmedabad -380 054 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcm 0617 P .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Dhiren Shah & Shri Nupur Shah, Ars ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Subhas Bain Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Dhiren Shah &For Respondent: Shri Subhas Bain CIT-DR
Section 6Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ B ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 2703/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2012-13) Popular Estate Management The DCIT बनाम/ Ltd. Circle-3(1)(1) Vs. (Previously known as Pioneer Ahmedabad Technopark Ltd.) 81, New York Tower – A Opp. Muktidham Derasar SG Highway Thaltej Cross Road Ahmedabad -380 054 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AABCM 0617 P .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri Dh…

Golden Computers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, this ground of appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2783/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) Golden Computers Pvt Ltd Vs Dy.Cit 8(1), Unit No.602, 6Th Floor, Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Deck Plaza, Midc, Andheri Mumbai-400020 (E), Mumbai-400 093 Pan : Aaacg1233E Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(3)Section 80

…T vs Geo Tech Construction Corporation (2000) 244 ITR 452 (446)(Ker). 7. In other alternative submission, the Ld.AR submits that there is no personal expenditure in case of company as held by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Sayaji Iron & Engg. Co vs CIT (2002) 253 ITR 749(Guj) wherein it was held that whether the vehicle belonging to an assessee company, where the vehicle belonging to assessee company are used by its director for personal or other purposes, it would be wrong to hold that vehicles are personally used by company because a limited company, by its very nature, cannot have any personal use. However,…

Third Eye Estate (I) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir. 15(3)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 6434/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodm/S Third Eye Estate (I) Pvt. Ltd. Acit Circle -15(3)(2) B-3301-3302, Oberoi Springs, 4Th Floor, 451 Aayakar Bhavan, Off Link Road, M.K. Road, Vs. Andheri (West), Mumbai – 400021 Mumbai – 400 053

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32Section 45

…. As the case before us is that of a company, therefore, in our considered view there can be no question of any personal expenses. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the following judicial pronouncements: Sr. No. Particulars 1 Sayaji Iron & Engg. Co. Vs. CIT 253 ITR 749 (Guj) 2. DCIT Vs. Haryana Oxygen Ltd. 76 ITD 32 (Del) 3 Omkar Textile Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO 115 TTJ 716 (Ahm) 4. KSS Ltd. Vs. DCIT 157 ITD 124 (Mum) We thus, on the basis of our aforesaid observations vacate the disallowance of motor vehicle expenses of Rs. 7,39,655/- made by the A.O. P a g e | 9 ITA No.6434/Mum/2014 A.Y. 2012-13 M/s Third Eye…

M/S. Yum! Restaurants (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 3530/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2019AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Ms Ananya Kapoor, advocateFor Respondent: Shri NK Bansal
Section 271Section 274Section 40Section 40A

…nd such expenditure are allowable as deduction u/s 37 of income tax act. She further stated that addition/disallowance has been made because of undue rejection of bona fide claim of assessee. She further stated that as held by honourable Gujarat High Court in 253 ITR 749 there could not be any personal expenditure in hands of company. She therefore stated that on these issues penalty could not be levied. 14. On issue of additional ground, she submitted that notices of penalty u/s 274 read with section 271 of income tax act has been placed on record in appeal set as well as photocopies are given. For which assessm…

Babul Products Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this issue is partly allowed

ITA 2614/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradipkumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2614/Ahd/2017 [Asstt.Year: 2014-15] Babul Products P.Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1)(4) Urmin House, Sindhu Bhavan Road Ahmedabad. Off: S.G. Highway, Besides Hof Living Before Mann Party Plot Cross Road Bodakedev, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aabcb 1866 F

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Dev, Sr.DR

…essee before the ld.First Appellate Authority who confirmed the same, and is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before the Tribunal, the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sayaji Iron & Engineering Co. Ltd., 253 ITR 749 (Guj) and prayed for deletion of the addition. 5. On due consideration of the facts, we are of the view that issue in dispute is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sayaji Iron & Engineering Co. Ltd., (supra), wherein it is held that since the assessee being a separate legal entity, the question of personal eleme…

DCIT, Karnal vs. M/S Mahesh Industries Pvt. Ltd., Karnal

In the result, ITA.No. ITA

ITA 2559/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Goel, C.A. And Ms. Umang Luthra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 36(1)(iii)

…ere is no justification to make any adhoc disallowance on this issue. There may not be any personal use of these facilities by the company. We rely upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sayaji Iron & Engineering Company vs. CIT [2002] 253 ITR 749 (Guj.). The addition is, therefore, liable to be deleted. We, accordingly, set aside the Orders of the authorities below and delete the addition. Ground No.3 of the cross objection of the assessee is allowed. 21. On Ground No.4 of the cross objection, assessee challenged the disallowance of Rs.11,02,935/- on account of sales tax. Learned Counsel…

DCIT, Karnal vs. M/S Mahesh Industries Pvt. Ltd., Karnal

In the result, ITA.No. ITA

ITA 2558/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Goel, C.A. And Ms. Umang Luthra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 36(1)(iii)

…ere is no justification to make any adhoc disallowance on this issue. There may not be any personal use of these facilities by the company. We rely upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sayaji Iron & Engineering Company vs. CIT [2002] 253 ITR 749 (Guj.). The addition is, therefore, liable to be deleted. We, accordingly, set aside the Orders of the authorities below and delete the addition. Ground No.3 of the cross objection of the assessee is allowed. 21. On Ground No.4 of the cross objection, assessee challenged the disallowance of Rs.11,02,935/- on account of sales tax. Learned Counsel…

DCIT, Karnal vs. M/S. Mahesh Timber Pvt. Ltd., Karnal

In the result, ITA.No. ITA

ITA 2557/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Goel, C.A. And Ms. Umang Luthra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 36(1)(iii)

…ere is no justification to make any adhoc disallowance on this issue. There may not be any personal use of these facilities by the company. We rely upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sayaji Iron & Engineering Company vs. CIT [2002] 253 ITR 749 (Guj.). The addition is, therefore, liable to be deleted. We, accordingly, set aside the Orders of the authorities below and delete the addition. Ground No.3 of the cross objection of the assessee is allowed. 21. On Ground No.4 of the cross objection, assessee challenged the disallowance of Rs.11,02,935/- on account of sales tax. Learned Counsel…

DCIT, Karnal vs. M/S. Mahesh Timber Pvt. Ltd., Karnal

In the result, ITA.No. ITA

ITA 2556/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Goel, C.A. And Ms. Umang Luthra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 36(1)(iii)

…ere is no justification to make any adhoc disallowance on this issue. There may not be any personal use of these facilities by the company. We rely upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sayaji Iron & Engineering Company vs. CIT [2002] 253 ITR 749 (Guj.). The addition is, therefore, liable to be deleted. We, accordingly, set aside the Orders of the authorities below and delete the addition. Ground No.3 of the cross objection of the assessee is allowed. 21. On Ground No.4 of the cross objection, assessee challenged the disallowance of Rs.11,02,935/- on account of sales tax. Learned Counsel…

Skk Steel Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Raigad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 389/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.389/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Skk Steel Enterprises Private Limited. 286, Victoria Over Bridge Road, Darukhana, Reay Road, Mumbai-400 010. Pan : Aajcs2912D .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri Tejinder SinghFor Respondent: Mrs. Shabana Parveen

…e Ld. AR of the assessee reiterated the submissions placed before the Assessing Officer as well as before the Ld. CIT(Appeals). He further placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sayaji Iron and Engg. Co. Vs. CIT, 2002 253 ITR 749 (Guj.) and submitted that in case of a limited company there cannot be anything as personal expenses because a limited company by its very nature cannot have any personal use. The Ld. AR, therefore, prayed for deletion of addition. 3 A.Y.2012-13 6. Per contra, the Ld. DR emphasized on the facts on record that on scrutiny of the details of expen…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Hal Offshore Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4673/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 4673/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Acit, Vs M/S Hal Offshore Ltd., Central Circle-15, 25, Bazar Lane, Bengali Market, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach3144B Ita No. 2081/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 M/S Hal Offshore Ltd., Vs Dcit, C/O M/S Rra Taxindia, Circle-12(1), D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi New Delhi-110049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach3144B Assessee By : Sh. Somil Agarwal, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.07.2019 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

For Appellant: Sh. Somil Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…venue authorities disallowed is the “increase” in expenses without any iota of evidence or cogent reason. Keeping in view, the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs CIT 26 ITR 775, Sayaji Iron & Engg. Co. Vs CIT (Guj.) 253 ITR 749 and DCIT Vs Haryana Oxygen Ltd. 76 ITD 32 (Del.), we hereby hold that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer cannot be legally sustained. 7. Ground No. 4 pertains to disallowance on account of legal and professional expenses. The Revenue disallowed the payment of Rs. 64,000/- made to R.N. Kalra and Rs.75,000/- to M.C. Panda as no TDS has…

M/S. Hal Offshore Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2081/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 4673/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Acit, Vs M/S Hal Offshore Ltd., Central Circle-15, 25, Bazar Lane, Bengali Market, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach3144B Ita No. 2081/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 M/S Hal Offshore Ltd., Vs Dcit, C/O M/S Rra Taxindia, Circle-12(1), D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi New Delhi-110049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach3144B Assessee By : Sh. Somil Agarwal, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.07.2019 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

For Appellant: Sh. Somil Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…venue authorities disallowed is the “increase” in expenses without any iota of evidence or cogent reason. Keeping in view, the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs CIT 26 ITR 775, Sayaji Iron & Engg. Co. Vs CIT (Guj.) 253 ITR 749 and DCIT Vs Haryana Oxygen Ltd. 76 ITD 32 (Del.), we hereby hold that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer cannot be legally sustained. 7. Ground No. 4 pertains to disallowance on account of legal and professional expenses. The Revenue disallowed the payment of Rs. 64,000/- made to R.N. Kalra and Rs.75,000/- to M.C. Panda as no TDS has…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Niit Smartserve Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue on both the grounds is dismissed

ITA 2160/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 2160/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Income Tax Officer, Vs M/S Niit Smartserve Ltd., 8, Balaji Estate, 1St Floor, Guru Ravi Das Ward-18(3), New Delhi Marg, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcn4598E Assessee By : Sh. Gaurav Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.07.2019 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. DR
Section 37(1)

…of the corporate entity, and keeping in view the fact that the bills and vouchers have been duly prepared and audited as per the statute and keeping in view the judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Sayaji Iron & Engineering Company Vs CIT 253 ITR 749, Shriram Pistons & Rings Ltd. 39 TTJ 132, Rattah Mechanical Works Ltd. Vs ITO, ITAT Chandigarh 87 Taxmann 288 and since, the Assessing Officer has not pointed out any specific item of personal or in admissible expenditure, in the absence of any evidence brought on record by the Revenue to prove that the expenditure incurred was in admissible, we…

M/S. Vichitra Constructions Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 5048/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

…) is bad in law and liable to be deleted. The Ld. AR further submitted that without prejudice, in case of a company no disallowance can be made on account of personal expenditure. The Ld. AR relied upon the following judgments: " CIT v Sayaji Iron & Steel Co. 253 ITR 749 (Guj) " Coca Cola India Ltd. vs. JCIT (2006) 102 ITD 134 (Pune) " LavridsKnudsanMaskinfabrik (India) Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT (2006) 102 TTJ (Pune) 882 " DCIT VS Haryana Oxygen Ltd. (1999) 76 ITD (Del) 32 " Dinesh Mills Ltd. v. CIT (2002) 254 ITR 673 (Guj) " CIT vs. S.S.P. (P) Ltd. (2011) 202 Taxman 386 (P&H) " Friends Clearing Agency (P) Ld. Vs. CIT (…

M/S. Vichitra Constructions Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 5047/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

…) is bad in law and liable to be deleted. The Ld. AR further submitted that without prejudice, in case of a company no disallowance can be made on account of personal expenditure. The Ld. AR relied upon the following judgments: " CIT v Sayaji Iron & Steel Co. 253 ITR 749 (Guj) " Coca Cola India Ltd. vs. JCIT (2006) 102 ITD 134 (Pune) " LavridsKnudsanMaskinfabrik (India) Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT (2006) 102 TTJ (Pune) 882 " DCIT VS Haryana Oxygen Ltd. (1999) 76 ITD (Del) 32 " Dinesh Mills Ltd. v. CIT (2002) 254 ITR 673 (Guj) " CIT vs. S.S.P. (P) Ltd. (2011) 202 Taxman 386 (P&H) " Friends Clearing Agency (P) Ld. Vs. CIT (…

Mittal Cottex India Private Limited, Beawar vs. Income Tax Officer, Beawar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 12/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Karni Dan (JCIT)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145(2)Section 145(3)

…out. In this regard we observe that the assessee being a corporate entity, no disallowance can be made on the ground of personal use in view of the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sayaji Iron & Engg. Co. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax 253 ITR 749 (Gujarat). Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the ad hoc disallowance of expenses of Rs. 45,088/-. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 26th March, 2019. ¼fot; iky jko½ ¼jes'k lh 'kekZ½ (VIJAY PAL RAO) (RAMESH C SHARMA) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountan…

The ACIT, Corp Circle-1(1), Kochi, Ernakulam vs. Appolo Tyres Ltd, Ernakulam

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 247/COCH/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 143(3)Section 80I

…5.3 Against this, the Revenue is in appeal before us. The Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) is not justified in giving relief to the assessee. 5.4 The ld. AR relied on the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Sayaji Iron and Engg. Co. vs. CIT ( 253 ITR 749) wherein it was held that the directors of the assessee were entitled to use the vehicles for their personal use in accordance with the terms and conditions on which they were appointed and the prerequisites given to the directors formed part of their “remuneration” under the Explanation to section 198 of the Companies Act, 1956, for the purpose…

M/S. Deepali Designs and Exhibits Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1827/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 36

…de any addition in this regard. Therefore, the AO in subsequent years has accepted the stance of the assessee and has not made any addition. The Ld. AR relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in the case of Sayaji Iron & Engg. Co. Vs. CIT [2002] 253 ITR 749 (Gujarat) wherein it has been held that no disallowance of car expenses can be made in the hands of the assessee- company on account of personal use of cars by directors. The ITAT, Delhi in the case of DCIT Vs. Sophisticated Marbles and Granite Industries [2010] 3 ITR(T) 220 (Delhi) have been held disallowances of car expenses on account of being…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Deepali Design & Exhibits (P) Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1710/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 36

…de any addition in this regard. Therefore, the AO in subsequent years has accepted the stance of the assessee and has not made any addition. The Ld. AR relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in the case of Sayaji Iron & Engg. Co. Vs. CIT [2002] 253 ITR 749 (Gujarat) wherein it has been held that no disallowance of car expenses can be made in the hands of the assessee- company on account of personal use of cars by directors. The ITAT, Delhi in the case of DCIT Vs. Sophisticated Marbles and Granite Industries [2010] 3 ITR(T) 220 (Delhi) have been held disallowances of car expenses on account of being…

The Addl. CIT, Range-1, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Adani Enterprises Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

ITA 2531/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Feb 2019AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 3

…@ 10% on the plea that personal use of hired aircraft could not be ruled out. When the matter was carried in appeal before the CIT(A), he deleted the disallowance, by following Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sayaji Iron & Engg Co Ltd Vs CIT (253 ITR 749), and held that no disallowance could be made in the hands of the corporate assessee for personal use by the directors. The Assessing Officer is aggrieved and is in appeal before us. ITA Nos.: 1840/Ahd/12, 3321/Ahd/14 and 2305/Ahd/15 and 1918/Ahd/12,3480/Ahd/ 14 and 2531/Ahd/15 Assessment years: 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 Page 43 of 43 149. H…